The Death Penalty is a 'mortal sin'

[Tim_D]

I am not going to accuse the Holy Father of heresy. Your interpretation therefore is wrong. Let me see if I can explain why it must be. What do you mean by mortal sin? In the case of slavery, it is a mortal sin by its nature. The treatment of humans as animals is grave matter. This simply cannot be this “the same” that the Holy Father is saying because the consistent teaching of the Holy Father is that the death penalty is not grave matter. If it were, then God would be gravely sinful, as He authorized the death penalty in the Old Testament.

So is God a grave sinner, or is this phrase “the same” referencing something other than the death penalty being a mortal sin. As he sets up the phrase in apposition to it, "…for a time, it was normal. Today, we say that the death penalty is inadmissible.”

You seem intent on tying this phrase "the same"backwards to the grave nature of slavery. Again, this makes God something less than God. I refuse to consider the Holy Father heretical based on some agenda twisting of his words.

The silly thing is that it is unnecessary. There is no reason to try and stretch the death penalty to be a mortal sin when the Holy Father said it was inadmissible. That alone should be enough for Catholics without exaggeration.

The quote in my post is directly taken from what Pope Francis said; it has nothing to do with my “interpretation.”

If 1) “slavery is a mortal sin” 2) “we know that it is a mortal sin” 3) and the “same goes for the death penalty,” then it logically follows that the death penalty is a “mortal sin.”

These are not my words, it is not a result of selective editing; it is a direct quote from Pope Francis. The fault is not mine if Pope Francis cannot speak in a manner that does not sow confusion. To blame me for “twisting his words” is to pardon him for his poor syntax. The fact that Pope Francis has a history of saying things that leave people confused and perplexed is evidence that he is not the best public representative to expound upon the Catholic faith. Your pseudo-chivaliric attempt to defend his inadequacies does not help clarify matters in the least.

 

[Thomas_Ruin]

The quote in my post is directly taken from what Pope Francis said; it has nothing to do with my “interpretation.”

If 1) “slavery is a mortal sin” 2) “we know that it is a mortal sin” 3) and the “same goes for the death penalty,” then it logically follows that the death penalty is a “mortal sin.”

These are not my words, it is not a result of selective editing; it is a direct quote from Pope Francis. The fault is not mine if Pope Francis cannot speak in a manner that does not sow confusion. To blame me for “twisting his words” is to pardon him for his poor syntax. The fact that Pope Francis has a history of saying things that leave people confused and perplexed is evidence that he is not the best public representative to expound upon the Catholic faith. Your pseudo-chivaliric attempt to defend his inadequacies does not help clarify matters in the least.

Yet you keep editing his words. Please don’t edit his words then deride him and call other people names. It doesn’t help your argument.

The bottom line is that the teaching of the Church now is that the death penalty goes against Christian teaching and separates us from God and Christ. That is the definition of sin.

 

[mikekle]

The quote in my post is directly taken from what Pope Francis said; it has nothing to do with my “interpretation.”

If 1) “slavery is a mortal sin” 2) “we know that it is a mortal sin” 3) and the “same goes for the death penalty,” then it logically follows that the death penalty is a “mortal sin.”

The funny thing is, we can look back and see how many tried to justify slavery, even though it was very wrong, we see the same exact thing today with the DP, folks giving all kinds of information in attempt to justify its use.

The thing is though, it takes a very long time for people to come to this realization, with slavery, it took many many decades and we still are not 100% there even today…its common today to exploit certain parts of the world and use the cheapest possible labor to maximize profits, even if it causes suffering.

 

[Tim_D]

Yet you keep editing his words. Please don’t edit his words then deride him and call other people names. It doesn’t help your argument.

The bottom line is that the teaching of the Church now is that the death penalty goes against Christian teaching and separates us from God and Christ. That is the definition of sin.

I have presented unedited quotes of what Pope Francis has said. How you can accuse me of “editing his words” is beyond me. The quote in post 19 is taken wholly from the article. There is no editing in it.

Perhaps you should explore the first edition of the catechisms position on the death penalty:

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the state.

2266 Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason **the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty o f legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. **For analogous reasons those holding authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the community in their charge.

The primary effect ofpunishment is to redress the disorder caused bytheoffense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment has the effect of preserving public order and the safety of persons. Finally punishment has a medicinal value; as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[Note 67: Cf. L£ 23:40-43.]

2267 If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

**Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the state. **

 

[Tim_D]

The funny thing is, we can look back and see how many tried to justify slavery, even though it was very wrong

You are imposing your modern day sensibilities upon people from the past which is not a legitimate thing to do. When we think of slavery today we tend to think of the trans-Atlantic slave trade and chattel slavery. Slavery in the ancient world was very different and actually seems to have had biblical support; “slaves, obey your masters.” Peasantry and serfdom were forms of slavery that doesn’t seem to offend the sensibilities of modern man for some reason and was part of the accepted normalcy of society, even being accepted by the Church. Indentured servitude was a form of slavery, yet all we ever seem to hear about is the “legacy” of American slavery in the South.

The Church, throughout her history, has never (as far as I am aware) declared that “slavery” was an intrinsic evil that should not be practiced or tolerated. The same can be said for the death penalty. It is only the recent generation or two who seem to be intent on turning the traditional past teachings of the Church upon its head by “refining” our understanding of things.

 

[Ender]

The Pope deliberately and clearly drew a direct analogy between the Church’s evolving position on slavery and the Church’s evolving position on the death penalty. It’s pretty clear he condemns those who administer the death penalty. Any other interpretation of his words would require some pretty remarkable mental gymnastics.

Then again, maybe not.*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). *(Cardinal Dulles, 2002)

*”if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.” *(Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004)

*The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. *(Archbishop Chaput, 2005)

*The Church is not changing her teaching. Governments will always have the justification to use the death penalty if it is necessary to carry out its task of ensuring social order. What the Church is urging now is that governments exercise their discretion *(Archbishop James Gomez, 2016)
Ender

 

[Ender]

There is also the possibility of conversion. We as Christians and certainly as Catholics have the burden and responsibility of converting sinners, if by no other way than example. Putting someone to death serves no one.

This is contrary to what the church herself teaches. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.(67)
The endnote (67) refers to a famous example of a criminal whose capital punishment led to his conversion - the good thief crucified with Christ.

The internet is full of statistics about people who have been executed, who were later found innocent.

The internet is also full of claims of alien abduction, which are barely less credible. In fact there are zero individuals who were “later found innocent.” There are several reasonable candidates for such a distinction, but that number is much smaller (certainly under a dozen) than you believe.

In the end it is just about mercy, and revenge. We are called on to be merciful, but like everyone else including murders, we have free will. We can show no mercy, just like the killers if we want to do that, but we should not be surprised when we stand in judgement and are likewise denied mercy for our own crimes.

This is a misapprehension of both mercy and revenge. I know everyone dislikes the idea of vengeance, but if it is so wrong why does God himself see fit to use it?* “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” *(Rm 12:19)
In fact we misunderstand the nature of vengeance, which is nothing other than an act of justice.*Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. *(Aquinas)
Vengeance is denied to the individual, but is an obligation of the State.

As for mercy, there is no concept of its being universally applicable. In order to receive mercy one must repent of his sins, but even the forgiveness of sins does not erase the debt owed because of them.

Ender

 

[abucs]

More ambiguous double speak.

Perhaps someone should ask Francis “Holy Father, did you just make capital punishment a mortal sin?”

Anyone here think the pope would give a straight answer of ‘yes’?

There’s your answer.

---

When the good thief was on the cross and scolded the other saying that they both deserved such a punishment I don’t remember Jesus stepping in to correct him that neither did they deserve such a punishment.

Instead Jesus blessed Him and through his reflectful admission promised Him a place in his Father’s house of paradise.

I would not say I am for or against capital punishment. I can think of examples both ways in which having or not having such a law would cause evil.

Blanket or ambiguous statements one way or the other do not help discussion and that goes also for the church.

 

[Ender]

What the Catechism says…

There are unfortunately several problems with what the catechism says.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

The problem here is that the caveat “if this is the only possible way…” is not actually part of the traditional teaching of the church. That restriction does not appear as part of her traditional teaching.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Several things here: first, the determination of what is sufficient to defend public safety is a prudential judgment, about which disagreement is legitimate. Second, if executions were contrary to human dignity - and if acting contrary to human dignity was a sin - then we would be disallowed from using it in any circumstance ("One may not do evil so that good may result from it.") Since even the catechism recognizes cases where it might legitimately be used, clearly this cannot be a disqualifying condition.

Finally, and probably most significantly, this section bases the use of capital punishment on a secondary end of punishment (protection), rather than on the primary end (retribution), but Natural Law requires that all other ends be subordinate to the primary end.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.

Again here, evaluation of the “possibilities which the state has” is a prudential judgement.

All that remains is actually for the Magisterium to delineate what is precisely meant by “very rare” and “practically non-existent.”

What is really necessary is for the Magistrium to clear up what the church really teaches about capital punishment.Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe. (R. Michael Dunnigan, J.D., J.C.L.)
Ender

 

[Don_Ruggero]

There are unfortunately several problems with what the catechism says.

The matter is one for the Magisterium to decide, with the divine authority and assistance with which it is vested…and to which every member of the faithful submits.

The Magisterium’s pronouncement will be in the area of morality as regards the death penalty, following upon the work of the commission that is examining this very point.

 

[pnewton]

The quote in my post is directly taken from what Pope Francis said; it has nothing to do with my “interpretation.”

Well, that is your opinion, and your interpretation. The Holy Father did not say the death penalty is a mortal sin, and that is a fact. It is good to understand the difference. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, that is, the actual teaching of the Catholic Church contradicts “the death penalty is a mortal sin,” whether you believe your opinion, interpretation or statement to be factual or not. That is why we have such a standard as the catechism.

The fault is not mine if Pope Francis cannot speak in a manner that does not sow confusion. To blame me for “twisting his words” is to pardon him for his poor syntax.

As I pointed out earlier, we do not have his homily. We have a news article with diced up quotes. Homilies were never to be understood in fragments. The Holy Father may not seem so confusing if we would stick to what he writes, or what he says in its entirety, and not what is written about what he says in the news.

God not only allowed, but mandated the death penalty at one time. That alone tells us that while it may not be admissible today today, it cannot be a mortal sin. God by his nature cannot sin. So whatever is eventual determined by any commission, Church teaching today cannot contradict Church teach in the past.

 

[pnewton]

By the way, I do not blame the reporters. It is really the fault of American readers that we have become so lax in understanding the nature of news. Take for example the OP. The title was given:

The Death Penalty is a 'mortal sin

The title of the article was:

Pope: Spirit helps church see wrongs in slavery, death penalty

No where in the article does it say the death penalty is a mortal sin. This type of mistake is not the fault of the Pope. It is the fault of those who want the Pope to say something he did not and read their own desires into the Pope.

A classic example is when the Pope said, “Who am I to judge,” and people took it to mean all manner of things from moral relativism to condoning homosexuality. The lesson was on none of those things, but simply on the literal point of judgement, which is not the Pope’s job. It is not even the job of God, the Father. (John 5:22). If we would just take what the Pope says and stop trying to expand up on it, we would be so much better off. But we live in a world where the news, bloggers and every individual has to add their own opinion to what is simple.

 

[Tim_D]

Well, that is your opinion, and your interpretation. The Holy Father did not say the death penalty is a mortal sin, and that is a fact.

Your reading comprehension skills certainly do leave a lot to desire. When Pope Francis says about slavery that “we know it is a mortal sin,” then continues with “the same goes for the death penalty,” how can anyone with even the most elementary reading skills and the bare minimum of logical intelligence not arrive at the conclusion that the 2+2 of his statement equals 4?

As far as the “who am I to judge” comment, Pope Francis was certainly being misquoted when the original qualifier of “if a person is homosexual and sincerely seeks Christ…” was all too often left out of the conversation.

 

[exnihilo]

Slavery “is a mortal sin; today we say this.

Today we say this and yesterday we didn’t. If it is now then doctrine has changed. If doctrine changes we’ve got a serious problem.

 

[Ender]

When Pope Francis says about slavery that “we know it is a mortal sin,” then continues with “the same goes for the death penalty,” how can anyone with even the most elementary reading skills and the bare minimum of logical intelligence not arrive at the conclusion that the 2+2 of his statement equals 4?

You really should consider the implications of your interpretation of what he reportedly said. Did you not read all of the statements I posted earlier (Post #26)? Do you really believe that any pope can personally repudiate a doctrine the church has taught unchanged for her entire existence? Your interpretation suggests that popes are free to invent doctrines as they see fit. They may have been given the keys to the kingdom, but the ability to define right and wrong is not among them.

Ender

 

[Don_Ruggero]

They may have been given the keys to the kingdom, but the ability to define right and wrong is not among them.

Actually, it is within the purview of both the Pope acting alone and the Bishops collectively, acting as the College. And I have every expectation that there will be more use of this prerogative, given where we are headed in 21st century and towards the 22nd.

 

[Tim_D]

You really should consider the implications of your interpretation of what he reportedly said. Did you not read all of the statements I posted earlier (Post #26)? Do you really believe that any pope can personally repudiate a doctrine the church has taught unchanged for her entire existence? Your interpretation suggests that popes are free to invent doctrines as they see fit. They may have been given the keys to the kingdom, but the ability to define right and wrong is not among them.

Ender

You can’t be unaware of the controversy surrounding the situation of civilly divorced and remarried Catholics possibly being admitted to communion despite the previously held position that such an irregular situation makes them indisposed for reception? There is now the suggestion that, yes, some situations, as irregular as they are, are not an obstacle. This, despite the request by four prominent American bishops seeking clarification from the pope and being rebuffed. What implications can we draw from that?

And then there’s this:

Actually, it is within the purview of both the Pope acting alone and the Bishops collectively, acting as the College. And I have every expectation that there will be more use of this prerogative, given where we are headed in 21st century and towards the 22nd.

So, is my position really that far out of the ordinary?

 

[Mousey]

You really should consider the implications of your interpretation of what he reportedly said. Did you not read all of the statements I posted earlier (Post #26)? Do you really believe that any pope can personally repudiate a doctrine the church has taught unchanged for her entire existence? Your interpretation suggests that popes are free to invent doctrines as they see fit. They may have been given the keys to the kingdom, but the ability to define right and wrong is not among them.

Ender

Actually, it is within the purview of both the Pope acting alone and the Bishops collectively, acting as the College. And I have every expectation that there will be more use of this prerogative, given where we are headed in 21st century and towards the 22nd.

Instead of the words right and wrong substitute the words moral and immoral. If what you say is correct than they could say that abortion is right/moral and helping your neighbor is wrong/immoral.
Do you really believe that a doctrine can be changed? If so, what can be believed with certainty?

The Church has always taught that for protection of society that the death penalty was the right of the state to use. That teaching has not changed and as I have told family members if it did I would know that the Church is false.

 

[Ender]

Actually, it is within the purview of both the Pope acting alone and the Bishops collectively, acting as the College. And I have every expectation that there will be more use of this prerogative, given where we are headed in 21st century and towards the 22nd.

The idea that the pope with or without the Magisterium is free to create moral truth is not something the church teaches.*The Pope cannot impose commandments on faithful Catholics because he wants to or finds it expedient. Such a modern, voluntaristic concept of authority can only distort the true theological meaning of the papacy. *

*The true sense of this teaching authority of the Pope consists in his being the advocate of the Christian memory. The Pope does not impose from without. Rather, he elucidates the Christian memory and defends it. *(Cardinal Ratzinger)
Ender

 

[Ender]

You can’t be unaware of the controversy surrounding the situation of civilly divorced and remarried Catholics possibly being admitted to communion despite the previously held position that such an irregular situation makes them indisposed for reception? There is now the suggestion that, yes, some situations, as irregular as they are, are not an obstacle. This, despite the request by four prominent American bishops seeking clarification from the pope and being rebuffed. What implications can we draw from that?

So, is my position really that far out of the ordinary?

No, regrettably it is not. It is nonetheless invalid.

Ender